Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Aug 19, 2025 at 02:37:19PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Sure, but we don't need to support a large number of tranches. Just make it,
>> idk, 128 entries long. Adding a dynamically allocated dsm to every server
>> seems like a waste - ever shared mapping makes fork / exit slower...
> The other issue is that there's presently no limit on the length of a
> tranche name registered via LWLockRegisterTranche(). Life would become
> much simpler if we're willing to put a limit on both that and the number of
> tranches, but thus far we've been trying to avoid it.
I can hardly imagine a reason why it wouldn't be okay to limit the
lengths of tranche names. But especially so if an unlimited length
causes practical problems.
regards, tom lane
